The Problem of Evil

David Sanson

2026-08-26

Preliminaries

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Review
3. Your Thoughts

Reminders

• For today, we are continuing our examination of the arguments from Chapter 1, “Can God Allow Suffering?”
• For next week, read Chapter 2, “Why You Should Bet on God.”
• Remember, your goal should be, after reading, to be able to articulate claims like,
  • “I disagree because…” is a sign that you did engage.
  • “I agree even though…” is also a sign that you engaged.

Review

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Review
3. Your Thoughts

The Argument from Pointless Suffering

Argument

• PS1. There is pointless suffering in the world
• PS2. If there is pointless suffering in the world, then there is no omnibeing.
• PS3. So, there is no omnibeing.

• Four objections to PS1: Appreciated Goods, Building Character, Free Will, Hidden Reasons.

Appreciated Goods

• PS1 is false. The point of suffering is that it allows us to appreciate good things.
• First objection: someone who experiences less pleasure and then a lot more pleasure can appreciate how much better the greater pleasure is, without ever suffering.
• Second objection: We endure more suffering than is needed to appreciate good things.

• overcast day vs. midwestern winter
• sore back vs. chronic back pain

Building Character

• PS1 is false. The point of suffering is to build character (courage, empathy, loyalty, perseverance, self-control, forgiveness, trustworthiness, …)
• Objection: Not all suffering builds character.

• without suffering, there is no danger. Without facing danger, cannot develop courage.
• Without profound acts of betrayal, there could be no profound acts of forgiveness.
• Without the horrors and hardships of war, no one could reach the levels of courage and selflessness that soldiers attain.
• Since these sufferings are necessary in order to have the best kind of world—one with courageous and forgiving people—we can see why God would allow them.

But:

• soliders who develop PTSD instead of courage.
• torture followed by death without chance to build character.

Free Will

• PS1 is false. Suffering is an inevitable consequence of free will, and the value free will outweighs the badness of suffering.
• First objection: Not all suffering: disease, natural disaster, wolves.
• Second objection: Why couldn’t God intervene to block the worst consequences of free will? (Toddler, chainsaw)
• Third objection: If God is omniscient, we don’t have free will anyway.

Hidden Reasons

• PS1 is false. All suffering serves a greater purpose, but often that purpose is hidden to us.
• Objection: This is possible—we cannot rule it out with 100% certainty. But it is wildly implausible, and something you should not believe. (Nornia analogy)

An All-But-Omnibeing?

• Perhaps God is not an omnibeing.
• Perhaps an omnibeing is impossible?
  • no one can bring about someone else’s free choice;
  • no one can know what that free choice will be before it is made;
  • morality requires compromises (e.g., between justice and forgiveness).
• Perhaps God is an all-but-omnibeing: someone very very powerful, who knows everything that can be known, and is very very good…

A Revised Argument

Argument

• PV1. There is pointless suffering in the world that an all-but-omnibeing could have prevented.
• PV2. If there is pointless suffering in the world of this sort, then there is no all-but-omnibeing.
• PV3. So, there is no all-but-omnibeing.

PV1 is harder to defend than PS1. The idea behind PV1 is that, even if an all-but-omnibeing cannot prevent all pointless suffering, there is some pointless suffering in our world that they could have and should have prevented.

Your Thoughts

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Review
3. Your Thoughts

Overview of Writing Exercise

• Spend a moment gathering your thoughts.
• Share your thoughts with someone else.
• Spend ten minutes writing up your thoughts in a paragraph.
• Share what you have written and get/give constructive feedback.
• Revise.
• Share what you have written to get/give critical feedback.

Overview of Writing Exercise

• Don’t worry about perfection! It is fine to be confused. It is fine to be uncertain. It is fine to make mistakes.
• The point here is the exercise, not the product.
• What you write will be collected and graded pass-fail for credit.

Gather Your Thoughts

What do you see as the strongest possible objection to the Argument from Pointless Suffering? Which premise should someone who believes in an omnibeing (or an all-but-omnibeing) deny, and why? Is your objection the same as one of the four discussed? If so, how do you respond to the objection(s) from the book? If not, what objections do you anticipate?

(You can do this in your head, or you can jot down notes for yourself.)

Share Your Thoughts

Turn to someone sitting next to you, compare notes, and discuss. (If needed, three of you should form a group of three.) Don’t let one person dominate. Be sure that each person gets a chance to share their thoughts.

Put Your Thoughts in Writing

Write a short argumentative paragraph, in which you state your objection as clearly as possible, present the strongest anticipated response to your objection, and explain why you think that response does not work.

If you have time, revise your paragraph for clarity and concision: omit needless words; try to say exactly what you mean; explain everything as explicitly as possible.

Share Your Writing

Turn to somebody else sitting near you, and exchange essays. (If our number is odd, three of you need to do a three-way share: A shares with B, B with C, and C with A.)

As you read your peer’s writing, focus first on understanding and constructive ideas. If there is something you don’t understand, or find unclear, mark it as unclear. If you have an idea about how they could develop their point further, jot it down. Avoid, for the moment, raising objections.

Receive Feedback

Pass the papers back to their authors. Pick one author to “go first”. Share your feedback with the author and discuss for one minute. Then switch roles for the second minute. If you are in a three-way share, switch roles after 45 seconds, and then again at 1 minute and 30 seconds.

Revise

Revise your writing in light of the feedback you just received.

Share Your Revisions

Turn to somebody else sitting near you, and exchange essays. (If needed, some other group of three should do a three-way share this time.)

This time, I want you to focus on objections. Think about what your peer is arguing, and try to come up with at least two possible objections. Think about which of those objections you think is the strongest.

Share Objections

Pass the papers back to their authors. Pick one author to “go first”. Share your objections with the author. Discuss. After two minutes, switch roles. If you are in a three-way share, switch roles after 1 minute and 30 seconds, and again after 3 minutes.

Open Share

• What did you learn about the problem of evil? Thoughts now about which objection(s) seem most promising?
• How did the writing process work? Examples of especially useful or unexpected feedback? Were there things that only became clear to you when you tried to write things down?
• Were there problems with the process? Are there guardrails we should agree to for future exercises to mitigate those problems?

Private Share

Write up a short reflection on where you stand now, after the exercise, compared to where you were before the exercise.

Turn in your Work

• Make sure to put your name at the top!